We missed this earlier: Delhi High Court Justice Prathiba M Singh has questioned the Supreme Court’s proposal to make lawyers disclose their use of artificial intelligence in court filings. She argued that the requirement could increase compliance work without necessarily improving accountability, according to a Bar & Bench report.
Speaking at the International ADR Conference 2026, Singh joined a discussion with Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak. She said lawyers already deal with several technology-related requirements. These include requirements relating to OCR and electronic filing. “I think disclosure norms is just going to make lawyers’ life more difficult.”
She said mandatory declarations could eventually become routine paperwork rather than a meaningful safeguard.
“They have to OCR documents, e-file documents and at the end of the day, even if you ask for disclosures, they all become templated affidavits, right?”
Singh also pointed to India’s adversarial legal system as one check against inaccurate AI-generated material. If one side relies on fabricated or incorrect material, she said, opposing counsel can challenge it before the court.
At the same time, she did not argue against lawyers using AI. Instead, she stressed that people must verify AI-generated material before relying on it.
“AI is going to be used. You wouldn’t want lawyers to come and lie to you saying they don’t use AI. They should use AI, but with the human verification standard. Without human verification, it can be an absolute disaster.”
She referred to a GST matter involving an order that cited four judgments. Three of those judgments did not exist. The Delhi High Court then set aside the order. She also recalled an appeal involving a trial court judgment. Its reasoning did not match the pleadings. The High Court observed, prima facie, that the judgment appeared to have been drafted using AI.
Singh said AI could help judges and lawyers with research, summaries and drafting, but should not replace human decision-making.
Judiciary-Controlled AI: She also called for the judiciary to build its own AI platform instead of relying on public tools for sensitive court material.
“We could use a large language model, but we should get our own AI platform prepared, with our own algorithms, the data residing within the control of the judiciary, the models being available within the judiciary.”
Her concern was particularly acute for matrimonial and criminal matters, where court records may contain sensitive personal information.
Singh was more cautious about deploying AI in district courts. She said the lower judiciary first needs stronger digital and physical infrastructure and suggested that this process could take another five to seven years. She instead highlighted cheaper live-transcription systems as a more immediate intervention.
“Get a cheaper live transcription software for the entire country, and you will see how criminal trials will move.”
Why the Disclosure Debate Matters: Singh’s remarks come as the Supreme Court considers its draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026, released on June 3.
The draft allows AI for activities such as legal research, transcription, translation, filing scrutiny and case management, but bars AI-only adjudication, risk scoring and certain forms of profiling. It also requires human oversight and verification for several uses.
For lawyers, the most contested provision is the requirement to disclose the “AI-assisted character” of documents prepared using AI.
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, or SCAORA, opposed that requirement in July, calling it “unworkable”. It argued that lawyers are already professionally responsible for the accuracy of their filings. It proposed a narrower certification instead. Advocates would only need to confirm that they had personally verified citations and legal authorities.
The dispute comes amid repeated cases of fake or fabricated AI-generated citations reaching Indian courts. In July, the Supreme Court adopted a zero-tolerance position on hallucinated precedents. The move followed cases in which tribunals relied on non-existent judgments or material containing fabricated citations.
Lawyers, Courts and Tech Firms Push Back Differently: The Court has nevertheless been expanding AI use for judicial administration and research. Its 2025 white paper supported AI for tasks such as research, transcription, translation and filing scrutiny. It also insisted that judges remain responsible for final decisions. The paper said humans must verify AI output.
Industry concerns are different: In its comments on the draft rules, Nasscom largely supported the framework. It asked the Supreme Court to define terms such as “high-risk applications.” Nasscom also sought clarity on technical audits. It said these audits should not automatically require companies to disclose source code or model architecture.
The three positions expose the main tension in the Supreme Court’s proposed AI framework. Courts want safeguards against hallucinations, privacy breaches and opaque automated systems. Lawyers are resisting blanket disclosure requirements. Technology companies also want clearer limits on audits and access to proprietary systems.
Read more: